|
On February 15 2019 07:36 narbsncharbs wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2019 07:02 Zetter wrote:On February 15 2019 06:47 narbsncharbs wrote:On February 15 2019 06:32 Zetter wrote:On February 15 2019 04:55 Charoisaur wrote:On February 15 2019 04:11 [F_]aths wrote:On February 13 2019 06:58 freelifeffs wrote:
thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed. Maybe it is time for terrans and zergs to figure out new strategies instead of asking to make the game easier for them? Perhaps the current set of common strategies versus Protoss is not the optimal way to play? We would not find out if we quickly change the balance. Funny how this is always said by the players on the favorable side of balance. Would you say the same if the roles were reserved? What did you say in early 2017 when every Toss was dying to tank pushes? Again: Can you finally provide any kind of data to support your claim that PvT is Protoss favored in balance atm? Just look at gm ladder profiles of protoss and terran players. Looks at the win rates. Look at those players historic best/worst matchups. People put too much weight in gsl statistics, it's ONLY a maximum of 120 games a season lol, and that is spread out between all the match ups. That's an extremely tiny sample compared to the sample size found on ladder. Ladder provides a bigger picture compared to gsl though neither provide 100% accuracy. First of all: The game is balanced for the tournaments not the ladder. Second: You're still not providing data. And that seems to be very cherrypicked. Here's the stats for the Top 50GM Terrans on NA: No one except Masa (who only has 12 TvP games and 5 TvZ) has TvP as his worst matchup. You can go on propagating your anecdotal evidence all you want, but unless you start providing data there's no way your claims will ever be believable. Edit: And while we're at it: Here's the Top 16 Protoss and Terrans on Korea with a notable number of games. Again nothing pointing in the direction of the matchup being especially favorable for Protoss. The game should not be balanced for tournament views, It should be balanced for playing. I didn't buy starcraft so that I can then watch it. I bought starcraft so I could play it. As a person who hands money to a company to play said company's game, I only care about the gameplay experience. I don't care what it looks like from a viewer perspective. I don't care if it looks stupid or whether or not people want to watch others play it. I care about the fun that the game provides me when i'm playing. Tournaments are outside of the game of starcraft, aside from the in-game tournament ques. Outside tournaments have no impact on me as a consumer, I get nothing from it. If you expect me to support the development of the game prioritizing tournament viewership instead of the development of the game for how fun it is for the players actually playing the game, you will be disappointed. The data is literally on the ladder, you have access to it. Stop playing the game of "show me the data" when you literally have access to it on your computer. Look at it. You already have it, no excuses.
So you didn't even read my post. Nice discussion you're having there with yourself.
Edit: Again you're making the claim that TvP is imbalanced. In a discussion it's on the one making the claim to prove it not the other way around.
Btw: If it's about balance for you, unless you are top GM (which you might just be and I don't know about it), then pro winrates are totally irrelevant for you, because you're not even close to their level. At master's the matchups will already be looking totally different.
|
On February 15 2019 07:36 narbsncharbs wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2019 07:02 Zetter wrote:On February 15 2019 06:47 narbsncharbs wrote:On February 15 2019 06:32 Zetter wrote:On February 15 2019 04:55 Charoisaur wrote:On February 15 2019 04:11 [F_]aths wrote:On February 13 2019 06:58 freelifeffs wrote:
thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed. Maybe it is time for terrans and zergs to figure out new strategies instead of asking to make the game easier for them? Perhaps the current set of common strategies versus Protoss is not the optimal way to play? We would not find out if we quickly change the balance. Funny how this is always said by the players on the favorable side of balance. Would you say the same if the roles were reserved? What did you say in early 2017 when every Toss was dying to tank pushes? Again: Can you finally provide any kind of data to support your claim that PvT is Protoss favored in balance atm? Just look at gm ladder profiles of protoss and terran players. Looks at the win rates. Look at those players historic best/worst matchups. People put too much weight in gsl statistics, it's ONLY a maximum of 120 games a season lol, and that is spread out between all the match ups. That's an extremely tiny sample compared to the sample size found on ladder. Ladder provides a bigger picture compared to gsl though neither provide 100% accuracy. First of all: The game is balanced for the tournaments not the ladder. Second: You're still not providing data. And that seems to be very cherrypicked. Here's the stats for the Top 50GM Terrans on NA: No one except Masa (who only has 12 TvP games and 5 TvZ) has TvP as his worst matchup. You can go on propagating your anecdotal evidence all you want, but unless you start providing data there's no way your claims will ever be believable. Edit: And while we're at it: Here's the Top 16 Protoss and Terrans on Korea with a notable number of games. Again nothing pointing in the direction of the matchup being especially favorable for Protoss. The game should not be balanced for tournament views, It should be balanced for playing. I didn't buy starcraft so that I can then watch it. I bought starcraft so I could play it. As a person who hands money to a company to play said company's game, I only care about the gameplay experience. I don't care what it looks like from a viewer perspective. I don't care if it looks stupid or whether or not people want to watch others play it. I care about the fun that the game provides me when i'm playing. Tournaments are outside of the game of starcraft, aside from the in-game tournament ques. Outside tournaments have no impact on me as a consumer, I get nothing from it. If you expect me to support the development of the game prioritizing tournament viewership instead of the development of the game for how fun it is for the players actually playing the game, you will be disappointed. The data is literally on the ladder, you have access to it. Stop playing the game of "show me the data" when you literally have access to it on your computer. Look at it. You already have it, no excuses.
The point you did not get is that you absolutely cannot approach a highly competitive skill-based game like Starcraft with this kind of attitude, there is an immense misunderstanding on your end regarding the nature of the game and how to extract the maximum amount of joy out of it.
StarCraft is the hardest game I know of by far, it's just insanely hard. Sure, you can play the campaigns or tend to custom maps (arcade or coop commander in SC2, as well) if you want a multiplayer experience outside of an competitive environment, but at the core the game has evolved around being a 1v1 game which just happens to be one of the pillars of esports.
The premise of playing this game is to improve and learn from your mistakes and you literally can play for an infinite amount of time and still won't be able to master it, but that's where the long-term excitement and fun come from, the potentially endless loop of losing -> improving -> winning until you're losing -> repeat.
And a great way in addition to just keep playing is to watch someone who is far better than you play your race, pick up stuff high tier players found out, get new ideas for builds etc., so stating that you as consumer get nothing out of professional tournament play is simply not true.
Day[9] actually described this very accurately in the series he did when Remastered was released, he said StarCraft is a game of constant crisis management where stuff goes wrong all the time and the player doing less mistakes wins the game.
While it would be ideal to maintain a somewhat balanced state throughout all levels of play, it not only makes little sense considering the amount of mistakes lesser players tend to make, but due to the asymetrical race design it's outright impossible, I'd say.
Maybe this game just isn't your cup of tea, you simply did not realize it, yet. The underlying principles of StarCraft, namely its difficulty, are what we all here thoroughly appreciate and which set it apart from any other game.
|
On February 13 2019 07:56 Rodya wrote:
This the problem with the current balance team. We have not had enough time to decide whether or not TvP is terran favored or protoss favored. It definitely is protoss favored on the ladder, but what about in GSL? We've only had a few groups... why are they creating a balance change after just a few groups? Stop changing the game, and let the pros figure everything out.
This isn't Dota or league of legends. This is starcraft.
This game stopped being starcraft a long long time ago. Its APM wars and worker harass-craft now.
|
United Kingdom20344 Posts
Did a protoss say that after protoss players complained to make the game easier by making gateways automatically transform into warpgates?
You can't turn it off so that occasionally even does stuff that you don't want it to 
Did anybody really ask for that, either? I took that as a change that they made for like gold league players and not anybody who took ladder or competitive play seriously.
|
Protoss did really well in the GSL qualifiers. 13 Protoss qualified, with 10 Zerg qualified next,and then 9 Terran qualified. I think this small nerf by Blizzard to Protoss will help to balance the matchup.
|
France13018 Posts
On February 15 2019 07:24 Zetter wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2019 07:19 Charoisaur wrote:On February 15 2019 06:32 Zetter wrote:On February 15 2019 04:55 Charoisaur wrote:On February 15 2019 04:11 [F_]aths wrote:On February 13 2019 06:58 freelifeffs wrote:
thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed. Maybe it is time for terrans and zergs to figure out new strategies instead of asking to make the game easier for them? Perhaps the current set of common strategies versus Protoss is not the optimal way to play? We would not find out if we quickly change the balance. Funny how this is always said by the players on the favorable side of balance. Would you say the same if the roles were reserved? What did you say in early 2017 when every Toss was dying to tank pushes? Again: Can you finally provide any kind of data to support your claim that PvT is Protoss favored in balance atm? Terran players complaining - Protoss players saying the matchup is perfectly fine. Seems pretty conclusive to me. So, no data again. Show nested quote +On February 15 2019 07:21 Poopi wrote:On February 15 2019 06:32 Zetter wrote:On February 15 2019 04:55 Charoisaur wrote:On February 15 2019 04:11 [F_]aths wrote:On February 13 2019 06:58 freelifeffs wrote:
thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed. Maybe it is time for terrans and zergs to figure out new strategies instead of asking to make the game easier for them? Perhaps the current set of common strategies versus Protoss is not the optimal way to play? We would not find out if we quickly change the balance. Funny how this is always said by the players on the favorable side of balance. Would you say the same if the roles were reserved? What did you say in early 2017 when every Toss was dying to tank pushes? Again: Can you finally provide any kind of data to support your claim that PvT is Protoss favored in balance atm?  2019 Global StarCraft II League Season 1/QualifierDear 2-0 Maru PartinG 2-1 TY Creator 2-0 INnoVation Creator 2-1 INnoVation These seemed like big upsets to me. However it seems that top terrans adapted now and can beat worse protosses 2019 Global StarCraft II League Season 1/Code S As you said they seem to have adapted now. Also that's a very very small dataset. Overall PvT was 52.8% in the GSL qualifiers which is not really that much.
The size of the dataset doesn't really matter that much here because the KR scene is so small you won't have a huge dataset of meaningful games.
Since you can't really do a quantitative study to assess the problem, you have to do a qualitative study. And qualitatively, these results tell you a lot because by now we are able to gauge players level precisely and Dear is far worse than Maru, PartinG is worse than TY and Creator is far worse than INnoVation.
If these results (far worse or worse players repeatedly beating better players all of a sudden) were to happen again a few weeks after, that would probably indicate a serious problem.
In Europe terrans mostly got trashed by zergs so we didn't really get to see TvP that much, and now there are only two terrans.
In NA there is huge discrepancy of skill level between players so I don't think this region is very good to evaluate balance compared to EU / KR.
And yeah terrans seem to have adapted so I'd rather wait and see if there is a real problem after the meta develops a bit.
However I don't agree with your assumption that you need data to prove and/or discuss that a match-up is imbalanced because we don't have as much data as blizzard has, and you could always say: "not enough data bro" or cherry pick data fitting one or the other narrative, which doesn't add much to the discussion.
Imo we need to have a look at the data available, and keep in mind that there could be design problems & balance problems tied together.
|
Someone else brought it up but all the TvP complainers kinda buried it. Does anyone else think that nydus exit speed needs to be massively toned down? Either that or make it take way longer to pop or way easier to kill with workers or other units. Right now it can hit before warpgate finishes and because it empties so fast, queens are basically guaranteed to be able to transfuse it, making the rush more or less unstoppable, not to mention you can start multiple worms, which makes it more or less impossible to block both from popping with the number of units protoss would normally have at the 4 minute mark. You can have a worm starting to pop at around 3:30 to 3:40 and have 3-4 queens and roaches exit out at around 4 minutes. Unless protoss specifically prepares for it, I'm not sure how they can ever hold it. It hits so quickly that, depending on the map, you might not even be able to adept scout it in time.
Even zerg pros and prominent streamers were saying the new nydus is way too good.
|
Nydus is way way too good, but zergs players aren't natural abusers (they need more time than T/P to fully abuse OP shit), so this is not in practice the priority to balance.
In TvP we pay the debt of more than one year of non-balanced "normal" macro play, issue throw under the carpet by reactored cyclons builds/the proxy meta cooked by Maru+$o$. Then $o$ (partially) solved it and Blizzard removed it altogether with the post-blizzcon patch (no more reactored cylcons, corner stone of the proxy meta).
With the proxy meta dead and "straight macro" games still unplayable, Terrans returned back to well-know 2 bases all-ins as the only way to win at decent levels. In my opinion (T), a meta way worse to play and watch than the proxy meta.
I hear people saying "Protoss have much aoe to play bio" etc, but in SC2 it is historically false: in TvP bio as been way more successful than mech for years and years and years. Thus the best way out of this sad situation is to work on TvP bio macro, and maybe nerfing a bit some terran all-ins.
So they are 2 main points:
I: buffing terran bio mid game / nerfing toss PvT midgame, preferably without affecting other MU
II: nerfing terran 2 bases all-ins, without impacting too much opening and mid-game strength
I-a] Buffing T bio mid-gamer vs toss
From a Terran perspective, the issue of going macro vs protoss is "everything protoss is way faster" : decent bio (decent number, stim, shield, meds ) is longer to get than blink/charge/gates, terran upgrades are way longer than chronoboosted upgrades, terran 3-bases production infrastructure is way longer to establish than toss, terran production cycles are way longer than gateway-focused toss, etc, etc, etc.
So, without touching core units themselves, i'm proposing ideas to buff the bio infrastructure build-up, like :
- -10 sec on stim research
- -10 sec on combat shield research
- +25 mana on new medivacs. No-energy medivacs and most of the bio mid-life is a classic in this MU when the protoss play gateway/trade centric. Maybe heal 1.1 heath point per energy point instead of 1 ?. Maybe lower medivac build time or cost ? (75, 75 ? )
- -10 sec techlab and reactor build time. x2 health point for add-ons (stim-snipping is both the most easy and most inpactfull tech-snipe of the game)
- Techlabs can do double upgrade simultaneously ?
- -5 sec on orbital research: with the "macro mechanics change" way back, mule was toned down, but a CC still loose the same time to morph into orbital command.
I-b] Nerfing PvT toss mid-game ?
The most obvious issue is chronoboosted double-upgrades.
Second one is the strength of Recall. Too much recalls and/or too speedy recalls.
thus T can't profit from their historically strongest point in the MU.
Recalling on a nexus under an army should at least partially punish the recalling army, and not, like this is actually the case in this MU, the opponent army (auto-focusing buildings, etc). A few seconds more "recall time" at nexus destination (and a few less from the departing point), even if units are not damageable, should help the terran get away.
II] Nerfing Terran 2-bases all-ins.
- The more obvious way to do this is to nerf the tanks only versus toss (-dmg on protoss shield), because let's face it, tanks are only good (and used) for all-ins and defense in this MU, as a macro unit they are already a bad idea.
- The second most obvious way is the raven. Maybe we should take a u-turn on the raven : make it less powerful but less expansive. Delete/hard nerf the 2 fancy spells, but make it half the price and build time. Maybe even without lab tech.
- In this process we should watch carefully early defense versus protoss 1/2 base all-ins/hard pokes. In case of issues, maybe reverse warpgate research time, smart buff the bunker (ideally buffing defending bunkers but not offending ones.), etc.
The most difficult thing is to find a decent way for T to open decently into 3-bases macro (still able to hold Toss all-ins), while not offering the same tools to do insane 2-bases all-ins. Without modifications to fast warp, blink & prisms, this seems hard, but i'am very open to yours ideas.
My propositions intend to speed-up bio opening and build-up while nerfing tanks (atm the corner stone of both early defense and 2bases all-ins), then nerfing mid-game chronoboosted upgrades and Protoss Recall-based super high mobility.
It's only some ideas : i am open to yours.
|
On February 15 2019 05:40 narbsncharbs wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2019 04:55 Charoisaur wrote:On February 15 2019 04:11 [F_]aths wrote:On February 13 2019 06:58 freelifeffs wrote:
thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed. Maybe it is time for terrans and zergs to figure out new strategies instead of asking to make the game easier for them? Perhaps the current set of common strategies versus Protoss is not the optimal way to play? We would not find out if we quickly change the balance. Funny how this is always said by the players on the favorable side of balance. Would you say the same if the roles were reserved? What did you say in early 2017 when every Toss was dying to tank pushes? Did a protoss say that after protoss players complained to make the game easier by making gaateways automatically transform into warpgates? Meanwhile as a terran, I don't have a choice which side my reactor tech/lab builds on and i have to manually switch buildings lol. Can we get the ability to place techlabs/reactors on both sides already? How was this overlooked and why is it ok to give "QoL" changes to one race but not the others? Where is the consistency?
QoL changes are terrible usually. Imagine if zerg could build on top of creep tumors. Not a big deal but it needlessly dumbs down the game. Leave reactor and tech lab as it is and revert warp gate change.
The little annoying details each race has to deal with make it beautiful. Should zergs be able to do the hold position larva trick in sc2? While itd be nice for zergs, it is inorganic. The game is what the game is - stop changing it (after removing swarm hosts and reverting the recent patches)!
|
|
|
On February 16 2019 07:46 Jathin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2019 06:50 Rodya wrote:On February 15 2019 05:40 narbsncharbs wrote:On February 15 2019 04:55 Charoisaur wrote:On February 15 2019 04:11 [F_]aths wrote:On February 13 2019 06:58 freelifeffs wrote:
thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed. Maybe it is time for terrans and zergs to figure out new strategies instead of asking to make the game easier for them? Perhaps the current set of common strategies versus Protoss is not the optimal way to play? We would not find out if we quickly change the balance. Funny how this is always said by the players on the favorable side of balance. Would you say the same if the roles were reserved? What did you say in early 2017 when every Toss was dying to tank pushes? Did a protoss say that after protoss players complained to make the game easier by making gaateways automatically transform into warpgates? Meanwhile as a terran, I don't have a choice which side my reactor tech/lab builds on and i have to manually switch buildings lol. Can we get the ability to place techlabs/reactors on both sides already? How was this overlooked and why is it ok to give "QoL" changes to one race but not the others? Where is the consistency? QoL changes are terrible usually. Imagine if zerg could build on top of creep tumors. Not a big deal but it needlessly dumbs down the game. Leave reactor and tech lab as it is and revert warp gate change. The little annoying details each race has to deal with make it beautiful. Should zergs be able to do the hold position larva trick in sc2? While itd be nice for zergs, it is inorganic. The game is what the game is - stop changing it (after removing swarm hosts and reverting the recent patches)! So a very early version of this debate about QOL changes was when SC2 was originally introduced. There was heated debate over whether or not multiple building selection would make the game too easy ("MBS" as it was called at the time), as well as having more than 12 units per control group and workers auto-mining minerals. To understand this debate better, it's useful to know that SC1 was centered on certain pro-gamers being known for either macro or micro. Since you couldn't be perfect at both, most pros had to choose one or the other. Since this added such a unique element to the pro scene, anti-MBS advocates had a lot to fight for. In the end, Blizzard stuck with their guns and it created a lot of opportunity for SC2's designers to differentiate the game on other aspects, which worked out fine. The logic can be taken too far (for example, a QOL change making creep auto-spread may not be the best idea), but in aggregate I think QOL changes are a minor part of the picture. In my opinion, game balance debates focusing on QOL are not really worth it. Better off debating the "real stuff."
While I generally agree that there are far more pressing matters to tackle, I'm not really fond of QoL changes, especially when Protoss seems to get so many of them, seems more like 'walking aid' sometimes, I mean, why do HTs need an auto attack when all you need is a second control group? Same with the stationary Observer/Overseer change, it promotes lazy play with F2, auto Warpgate morph is probably fine, still annoying. Didn't like the auto worker rally, either, even the small stuff is a possibility to display skill imo.
|
On February 13 2019 07:15 narbsncharbs wrote:
Giving them blink for cheap was fine, but they needed to compensate the other races. For terran, they could have shortened the build time for siege tanks which would also solve the problem mech has with never being able to trade a single army late game vs protoss/zerg. I haven't watched much PvZ so I will refrain from commenting on what I think zerg needs.
Blizzard balance team's decisions end up restricting races more than improving them. They need to rethink their approach entirely. Players want more build order options, not less. Stop making decisions that take away options or stop making decisions that create less options. Their current approach is why the game is so linear/stagnant/flavorless. Stop making this game worse blizzard, ffs.
Nerfing units/upgrades is NOT the best option in most cases. Stop doing it. Instead of nerfing, buff something on the other sides that way everyone has fun toys to play with.
The main reason mech isn't viable is because of terran's inability to remax as fast as protoss/zerg late game when trading armies. Zerg can instamax, protoss can near insta-max. Terran cannot come close at all with mech solely because of siege tank build time. Siege tanks play a huge role in the mech army. If we can't build them fast enough, how can mech compete with zerg/protoss late game if we can't even trade armies? Shorten the build time for siege tanks so we can trade armies effectively.
THINK ABOUT IT BLIZZARD. COMMON SENSE.
Basically with this revert, blizzard accomplished next to nothing when it comes to managing balance over the last 2 months. Who is overseeing the balance department? The balance department is not operating effectively at all and are frustrating the playerbase which can cause negative effects when it comes to customer loyalty and PR. Does blizzard not understand how balance decisions actually have an effect on their bottom line? It's things like this that make gamers want to speak bad about the company and i'm not surprised that investors have begun to notice this. Then they sell, stock plummets. In a nutshell, Blizzard is creating their own problems.
For a company that has been balancing their own game for the last decade, I would think they would have a very good understanding of how decisions can affect balance. Apparently this isn't the case. I can only hope the balance team is on the chopping block for getting laid off.
User was warned for this post.
User was warned for this post ! he try to explain his view ! what a foolish guy !
You can use a new add on, on the factory, to fix the slow production of Tank in late game. We were use it on the Powered Mod, worked well but not enough/player game to be 100% sur.
link : https://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/526181-starcraft-2-powered-another-way-to-play-lotv#1 ( Tech Reactor)
++
|
On February 15 2019 04:55 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2019 04:11 [F_]aths wrote:On February 13 2019 06:58 freelifeffs wrote:
thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed. Maybe it is time for terrans and zergs to figure out new strategies instead of asking to make the game easier for them? Perhaps the current set of common strategies versus Protoss is not the optimal way to play? We would not find out if we quickly change the balance. Funny how this is always said by the players on the favorable side of balance. Would you say the same if the roles were reserved? What did you say in early 2017 when every Toss was dying to tank pushes?
I am a (very bad) zerg-main player.
|
It seems every patch looks like an endless discussion...
Is TL garbage site ?
|
On February 20 2019 02:35 Vision_ wrote:
It seems every patch looks like an endless discussion...
Is TL garbage site ?
Yes and yes.
|
Germany25658 Posts
On February 20 2019 02:35 Vision_ wrote:
It seems every patch looks like an endless discussion...
Is TL garbage site ?
Right in the feels 
|
If Blizzard reads these threads and takes any of these opinions into consideration this game is royally fucked.
Can already tell they are influenced by streamers whining.
And go ahead and warn or ban me for stating my opinion retarded nazi mods.
User was banned for this post.
|
On February 21 2019 03:18 KadaverBB wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2019 02:35 Vision_ wrote:
It seems every patch looks like an endless discussion...
Is TL garbage site ? Right in the feels
Little inclined to reason, crowds are on the contrary very apt for action
|
I think a great solution is adding +5 damage to the base siege of the liberator to make terrans +2 +2 +1 push before the late game much more impactful indirectly making toss either have to opt for more on stalkers or more on anti-air def. For those wondering each attack, upgrade adds +5 damage to the liberator so at +2 the liberator does just enough to 2 shot stalkers like they used to. I think +2 is too long but I think no upgrade is too strong also. I think the halfway point of making it +1 is just fine as it cannot really be abused too early and it comes out just before late game making it an option people would have to opt into and still build the liberator count for. I also think the liberator should get a slight build time buff as it takes currently 43 seconds. Maybe knocking off 5 seconds may help though it may also be op vs Terran a cyclone should still come out faster than a liberator same with a Viking. Buffing bio is too strong as it will affect TvZ and TvT, so buffing midgame units that are needed a lot vs protoss is the way to go I feel like. Another thing that can be taken into consideration is maybe stim research time. Stim being lowered is a very controversial topic but I think maybe by slightly decreasing its build time it will allow Terran to get out onto the map much faster, its also just an upgrade that is basically essential to playing bio but will always come out later than upgrades say like blink or charge and can be sniped off more easily (Reference to Zest vs aLive at GSL that was kind of depressing but Zest played amazingly) Another option to consider would be buffing Terran economy or defense maybe making mules mine the 5 more minerals they used to mine back in HotS to give greater incentive to terrans for going into 3CC Macro builds vs Toss. Cause at the moment there is little to no reason to go 3CC unless you are really confident that you're better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
